Feist−Feist: Theories of
Personality, Seventh
EditionII. Psychodynamic
Theories- Erikson: Post−Freudian
Theory
(^252) © The McGraw−Hill
Companies, 2009
In 1949, the University of California officials demanded that faculty members
sign an oath pledging loyalty to the United States. Such a demand was not uncom-
mon during those days when Senator Joseph McCarthy convinced many Americans
that Communists and Communist sympathizers were poised to overthrow the U.S.
government. Erikson was not a Communist, but as a matter of principle he refused
to sign the oath. Although the Committee on Privilege and Tenure recommended that
he retain his position, Erikson left California and returned to Massachusetts, where
he worked as a therapist at Austen Riggs, a treatment center for psychoanalytic train-
ing and research located in Stockbridge. In 1960, he returned to Harvard and, for the
next 10 years, held the position of professor of human development. After retire-
ment, Erikson continued an active career—writing, lecturing, and seeing a few pa-
tients. During the early years of his retirement, he lived in Marin County, California;
Cambridge, Massachusetts; and Cape Cod. Through all these changes, Erikson con-
tinued to seek his father’s name. He died May 12, 1994, at the age of 91.
Who was Erik Erikson? Although he himself may not have been able to answer
this question, other people can learn about the person known as Erik Erikson through
his brilliantly constructed books, lectures, and essays.
Erikson’s best-known works include Childhood and Society(1950, 1963,
1985); Young Man Luther (1958); Identity: Youth and Crisis(1968); Gandhi’s Truth
(1969), a book that won both the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Award; Di-
mensions of a New Identity(1974); Life History and the Historical Moment(1975);
Identity and the Life Cycle(1980); and The Life Cycle Completed(1982). Stephen
Schlein compiled many of his papers in A Way of Looking at Things(Erikson, 1987).
The Ego in Post-Freudian Theory
In Chapter 2, we pointed out that Freud used the analogy of a rider on horseback to
describe the relationship between the ego and the id. The rider (ego) is ultimately at
the mercy of the stronger horse (id). The ego has no strength of its own but must bor-
row its energy from the id. Moreover, the ego is constantly attempting to balance
blind demands of the superego against the relentless forces of the id and the realis-
tic opportunities of the external world. Freud believed that, for psychologically
healthy people, the ego is sufficiently developed to rein in the id, even though its con-
trol is still tenuous and id impulses might erupt and overwhelm the ego at any time.
In contrast, Erikson held that our ego is a positive force that creates a self-
identity, a sense of “I.” As the center of our personality, our ego helps us adapt to the
various conflicts and crises of life and keeps us from losing our individuality to the
leveling forces of society. During childhood, the ego is weak, pliable, and fragile; but
by adolescence it should begin to take form and gain strength. Throughout our life,
it unifies personality and guards against indivisibility. Erikson saw the ego as a par-
tially unconscious organizing agency that synthesizes our present experiences with
past self-identities and also with anticipated images of self. He defined the ego as a
person’s ability to unify experiences and actions in an adaptive manner (Erikson,
1963).
Erikson (1968) identified three interrelated aspects of ego: the body ego, the
ego ideal, and ego identity. The body egorefers to experiences with our body; a way
of seeing our physical self as different for other people. We may be satisfied or dis-
satisfied with the way our body looks and functions, but we recognize that it is the
246 Part II Psychodynamic Theories